The Supreme Court refused an urgent hearing on a plea seeking a fair, time-bound probe into alleged Ram Temple donation misappropriation, saying the case would be heard after the summer break: “Heavens are not going to fall… What is the urgency”
The Supreme Court declined to grant an urgent hearing on a petition seeking a fair, impartial, and time-bound investigation into the alleged misappropriation of donations collected for the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
A bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu said the matter would be taken up after the summer break.
The bench observed orally,
“Heavens are not going to fall… What is the urgency,”
ALSO READ: Who Stole From India’s Holiest Temple?: Row Erupts Over Ram Temple Donation Theft
The petition was filed by advocates Ajay Kumar Rai and Dinesh Kumar Yadav. It sought a direction that a CBI-led multi-disciplinary special investigation team (SIT) investigate alleged financial irregularities and other purported illegalities related to the affairs and administration of the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.
In addition to calling for the registration of an FIR, the petition asked the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government, and the temple trust to establish and make operational such regulatory, supervisory, and audit mechanisms as may be necessary to protect public interest and maintain the confidence of millions of devotees and donors.
The plea said,
“Whether or not the reports regarding missing funds and other alleged irregularities concerning the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust are ultimately found to be true, such reports have caused deep concern among the generations that struggled for the restoration of the glory of Ayodhya,”
The petition further alleged that the SIT constituted by the Uttar Pradesh government had begun its inquiry into the matter without registering an FIR or any regular criminal case.
It argued that reports about alleged missing funds and other irregularities involving the temple trust should be independently verified through a professional investigation by a unified agency equipped with the necessary expertise, resources, and institutional mechanisms to handle complex financial and criminal matters.
The plea said,
“Such an inquiry would inspire greater public confidence than a preliminary probe conducted by a special investigation team (SIT) comprising administrative officers who may not possess specialised credentials in criminal investigation,”
The petition added that the issues not only involve the possible commission of cognisable offences, but also directly impact the faith, sentiments, and trust of devotees and the wider public.
It also noted that on June 13, the Uttar Pradesh government constituted the SIT at the request of the temple trust following allegations of misappropriation of donations received at the Ram temple.
The SIT includes Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant, IGP Kiran S, and Finance Department Special Secretary Neel Ratan.
The Ram Temple stands at a site in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, that has remained at the centre of a decades-long religious, political and legal dispute.
The controversy began after allegations surfaced regarding the handling of offerings received from devotees. The temple receives donations through multiple channels, including cash boxes installed inside the premises where pilgrims deposit money and valuables. The temple complex reportedly receives tens of thousands of visitors daily, with the number increasing significantly during weekends and religious festivals.
According to reports, the trust recorded an annual income of around Rs 3.27 billion during the financial year 2024-25, making it one of the highest-earning religious institutions in India.
A former member associated with the trust’s accounts team, Mahipal Singh, raised concerns over alleged irregularities in the handling of donations. Singh claimed that he was removed from his position after raising questions internally regarding the management of cash offerings and precious items donated by devotees. He later became publicly known as a whistleblower in the matter. However, the allegations made by Singh have not been independently verified.